Depends on how much they can still spend. Don't think the players union will accept a hard cap in any case. A soft one, maybe
Premier League clubs have agreed in principle to introduce a spending cap
- Thread starter SilentWitness
- Start date
This season the league passed a law where Saudi clubs can loan players to EPL teams, namely Newcastle, I wonder how long it'll be before we see an 100 million Saudi player on a financially small term loan in the Prem? No wonder Newcastle voted in favour.
Villa's owner is an interesting one as he tends to be always against rules and limits on spending, just a good old capitalist I think. Villa always tend to be of the stance, let others and ourselves do as they please. I'm sure I remember them voting with City and the spend what you want side on a couple of other votes/issues too.
Maybe @FootballHQ knows why or even if I'm imagining this.
He ended up at City because Madrid were clear in saying they could only have him or Mbappe and they weren't interested in him cause they thought Mbappe was sewn up.
What is the point of building the commercial brand if we're tied to the hip in terms of spending with some yo yo championship club who play long ball football? This should be tied to revenue rather then how much Sheffield United earn!
Be careful what we wished for. Spending cap would hit us harder than city.
We have nothing but money to offer at the moment and another 5 years of so so signing could send us further down spiral
We have nothing but money to offer at the moment and another 5 years of so so signing could send us further down spiral
Sure it had nothing to do with the Athletic reported 40m+ agent fee and whatever the hell Haaland and his Dad wanted (at least as much as the agent) on top.
Was all proper legit on the books
Football success should be more tied to how good of a football club you are today, instead of how many noodles you can sell in the Far East based on success 30 years ago
But if a club brings eyes to the league through their marketing, there is an indirect effect; the bottom club's revenues will rise and the cap will rise as an effect.
Completely against the principle of this. Capping the wages of the working staff (players), so that the billionaires earn more. Some capitalism this.
The problem with making it 'fairer' is that you are not making the bottom clubs better. You are just making the top clubs shitter and therefore the whole league worse which is worse for everyone.
No, capping expenditures as a percentage of revenue so the business of football can thrive and be sustainable.
Not necessarily. Top clubs just won't be able to stockpile talent and/or splunk money. Chelsea probably would have been better off if they had to think about a cap before spending obscene amounts on 46 players. Citeh would have to rely more on their academy for squad depth. Ancillary players at top clubs become cornerstones of clubs a tier below, making them better positioned to challenge top clubs.
That's how communism work. Countries implementing that didn't fare great right? Spoiler alert no one like to work so that others benefit out of it especially if those rules are crippling them. What usually happens is that they'll find an alternative way out of it
I understand with the idea of stopping clubs from buying their way to success thanks to sugar daddies However this is different. It's about the club working hard to improve it's own revenue through legal ways which in turn would allow them to spend extra in the transfer market. If that get crippled then it means less stars, the EPL gets less attractive and the noodle firms will sponsor other clubs. Demonising revenue is therefore not particularly bright
I've seen the fall of the Serie A due to top clubs being crippled. Sure the smaller clubs benefited out of it. However ask yourself if the league is better now then in the 80s. The reality is quite cruel I am afraid. Most fans watch football because of manutd, Liverpool Milan, juve etc. They can't give a toss about Brighton, west ham, Sheffield united, sassuolo or Napoli
Last edited:
You are taking one example -Chelsea and applying it for everyone. The top clubs don't stockpile talent or spend a sht load of cash for shits and giggles. They do it because in 90 percent of cases spending cash = more success. Spending less cash will therefore make you worse. If the premier league can just save themselves millions and be just as good then we won't need FFP or spending caps. They would just do it
The argument in 5ish years will be I like this because my club is doing well under these constraints.
I don't see the point in this when certain clubs can circumvent the cap by having payments made offshore.
Fine. Add United to the pile of examples. Or look at Liverpool as an example of how it's possible to compete at the highest levels while spending moderately.
The vast majority of clubs won't be impacted negatively by this. If City and United have to spend less, is that a tragedy? They'll just have to be smarter.
It's funny how in the US (where capitalism is more unfettered compared to Europe) we realize that it's not the best concept to apply to sports without guardrails to foster competition and success based on merit
I personally don't differentiate between sugar daddies, oligarchs and/or a horde of a billion fans... At the end of the day extreme money is extreme money and it distorts competition and strains clubs trying to keep up. No one is demonizing revenue. This is simply about increasing the competitive nature of the league and ensuring expense growth is controlled relative to revenues. If the PL's popularity is due to it being competitive relative to other leagues then this should be a home run, right?
And if it is true that most fans just give a feck about the big clubs doing well (United, Liverpool, Milans, Madrid, Barcelona) then fair enough, maybe this is the league shooting itself in the foot, and maybe we should go in the other direction and have each club sign their marketing deals and get their sugar daddies/oligarchs in, and may the best funded club win
There's a Huge difference though. The only one benefiting out of sugar daddies are the club in question. They tend to go in, they monopolise the league, ruining competition in the process and then they leave leaving a hole in that club's finances. Hordes of fans make that club and by default the entire league financially successful and that's reflected in media rights etc. If that goes away then the likes of sky would not pay as handsomely as they are doing now. I assure you most people watch football because popular clubs are successful. They can't care less of how Bournemouth fare. So if we're crippling the big guns to help the lesser clubs then we are heading into trouble
Demonising fan bases and revenue is silly. If the EPL doesn't want them I assure you that others will set the red carpet for them
Last edited:
There is a difference between sugar daddies and a horde of fans, but at the end of the day the club with the huge advantage benefits the most from the advantage they have in revenue. Bayern has monopolized their league without a sugar daddy.
If it is true that most people only care about popular clubs being successful then you are right, neutering United and Liverpool will make people walk away
Some rules sound ok on paper until the cheaters find a way to break them. And if it they are to be enforced like we have seen against Chelsea and City...no thanks
Again it is only your belief that spending less = more success. Literally everyone else thinks spending more = more success. Is it possible to spend less and be successful. Sure look at Leicester. But there is a reason why everyone spends as much as they possibly can. Its the whole reason for FFP and the spending cap. To stop them spending money they dont have. Why are they doing that when they could listen to you and spend less and be successful?
This is the way to go (at least some sort of spending cap) if we actually are lookning for a sustainable implementation of FFP. It makes little sense to cap at revenue when you allow private owners. With these rules cheating will be much harder and it will be more of a focus on actually doing good business rather than doing the most business.
It would make sense if all of football was tied to the same rules, but they aren't and for that reason the top players will seek the more lucrative contracts abroad.
Sure, but it will depend ln what the cap actually is. It will probably keep teams from having players earning 300k a week sitting on the bench, but maybe that's a good thing in the end.
If the desire is to 'level the playing field' it would make more sense to restrict the numbers of players a club can have in it's academy/reserves/out on loan. The various spending proposals actually encourage wealthy clubs to stockpile young talent as they can then be sold for notional profit to assist in complying with financial limitations.
Clubs could and would cheat away with payments to individuals but they could still only have a maximum number on their books.
Clubs could and would cheat away with payments to individuals but they could still only have a maximum number on their books.
This proposal has the opposite effect as it's not about profitability.
I thought it was about spending on transfers, wages and agents fees? In which case transfers would be net, those bought less those sold? Quite likely to be wrong and happy to be told the difference.
You're correct in that it's about spending, but it's gross spend as opposed to net spend. You're also correct in saying that the current rules incentivise stockpiling and selling talent for profit. The proposed rules are about spending, not profit. Spending figures are much harder to manipulate (and in the case of transfers require other clubs to participate in fraud) which explains why City are against it. I think United are against it because it makes it harder to spend your way out of trouble. And @padr81 is suggesting that Villa may be against it on principle.
Thank you. Gross spend seems odd but I accept what you say.
My own view is that any form of financial constraint will be circumvented by cheating come what may, and that restrictions on squads, loans and club tie-ups would be better. But then again as a fan of one of the wealthiest clubs it's not really for me to say, it's up to all the others to decide really.
I'm not saying the less money you spend, the more successful you'll be. I'm saying that past a certain point, spending has diminishing returns on success, and in addition you don't want clubs relying on spending to get success, as that drives inflation and being in the red.
It's easy to spend money, especially in the PL, because clubs are flooded with cash. It's harder to optimize the spending when it can't go beyond a certain point. And it would be great to see a sport where clubs are rewarded for the latter, instead of how much money they are able to splash around.
Believe it or not, Real Madrid are not the biggest spenders in the world (which is why Perez and Tebas bitch all the time, they're jealous of the PL's earning power). But you can't argue they do very well with what they have.
I don't even think this is the perfect measure, but the spirit behind it is in the right place.
Where will all the cash go? Revenue that can't be spent.
The German league is different to the EPL though. In the Bundesliga, Bayern acts like super massive black hole who sucks and destroys everything daring crossing its event horizon. Occasionally a German club might look as if its stole its shine for a while but in the end its destruction is imminent. According to Businessday 5 out of the 10 most supported clubs in the world are English (United at 3rd place, City at 6th, Chelsea at 7th, Liverpool at 8th and Arsenal are at 10th). Meanwhile there's clubs like Spurs whose fan base size is very close to that of Inter for example. To return to the astronomy analogy we're more like Jupiter ie a huge planet who plays an important role in the solar system (ie it attracts most asteroids to itself) but isn't big enough to dominate all other planets.
Ok I've been fixating on astronomy at the moment so apologies. My point is that United could never become Bayern. Even in our prime (ie lack of powerful sugar daddies or state owned clubs)
A- United couldn't just knock at the door and hoover the best talent out of every single club. Shearer, Gazza and Anderton were among the players who got away. Meanwhile hell would freeze before we could get our hands on the likes of Henry, prime Michael Owen, Steve G, Vieira etc.
B- Even in our prime the league was extremely competitive. During the treble season we garnered just 79 points (ie the amount of points City having played just 34 games), we won the league with just 1 point and we drew 13 out of 38 games
C- From 1991-92 till 2001-2002 we were only the biggest spenders twice (1998-1999, 2001-2002). Newcastle were the biggest spenders 3 years in a row and Blackburn 2 years in a row, with Liverpool, Everton and Leeds being the biggest spenders for the rest.
Revenue by itself won't create monopolies in the EPL. That's because other clubs have fan bases that are big enough to still go toe to toe with us. What these rules will do is rendering the hard work generated by clubs to build their fan base up fruitless while removing the occasional big spend of clubs that might make them competitive. In that case they would either not invest too much on such effort or they'll find alternative routes to capitalize from such fan bases (Super league?). Guess who benefit of such huge fan bases? The answer is the smaller clubs, cause subscriptions is what persuade companies such as SKY to throw money at the league.
Then there's the non footballing factor that comes to play ie tourism. In 2017 Manchester welcomed 2.4m domestic visitors and 1.32m international visitors. The latter in particular would need hotels, taxis and will eat out. Ask yourself why the vast majority of those 1.32m visitors go to Manchester rather then London, Paris, Florence, Rome or Madrid. :Spoiler alert: Its not for the Trafford center
I’m really surprised by this. If I had to guess their positions I’d say;
Utd
Liverpool
Arsenal
Spurs
Chelsea
City
I wonder how they measure it?
I recently went to the US and City shirts were the norm and far more frequent then United shirts. My point is that EPL football is big. Even in our prime there was zero risk of United becoming the Bayern Munich of England.
Huge dividends
for the short term yes but football fuel business and not viceversa. Less money on the football side will translate to the league becoming less attractive, thus less revenue and then less dividends. That's what happened to the Serie A. There was a time when the best players in the world played there (Maradona, Platini, Baggio, Van Basten, Gullit etc). These days they are struggling to attract such huge revenue with the likes Giroud, Çalhanoglu and GudmundssonHuge dividends
@devilish appreciate the detail and astronomy analogy
Do you think the current proposal is too punitive? Is pegging the cap to 5 times the TV revenue of the smallest club too limiting?
Or would a reverse floor kind of work? Let's say United's revenue is 100M, the most in the league. Maybe define a framework where if you are a smaller club without the fans and or sponsors, you can accept external "artificial" funding of up to half or 75% of that amount, which provides you with more funds to spend. So the big clubs don't get limited, but the smaller clubs have more room to maneuver and compete.
And also, what "killed" Serie A? Was it the commies?
Do you think the current proposal is too punitive? Is pegging the cap to 5 times the TV revenue of the smallest club too limiting?
Or would a reverse floor kind of work? Let's say United's revenue is 100M, the most in the league. Maybe define a framework where if you are a smaller club without the fans and or sponsors, you can accept external "artificial" funding of up to half or 75% of that amount, which provides you with more funds to spend. So the big clubs don't get limited, but the smaller clubs have more room to maneuver and compete.
And also, what "killed" Serie A? Was it the commies?
Last edited:
At my son’s school they all want to be De Bruyne or Haaland, so I’m sure the change will come in time, I just haven’t seen it yet.
But maybe I’m looking at it from an England-centric point of view if what you say about the US is true. It’s a massive market after all.
Spanish clubs have all sorts of financial issues and La Liga has pretty strict spending to turnover limits (unless you're Barsa where they will bend over backwards for them). There's hardly a risk of the PL losing a lot of players to La Liga clubs other than Real Madrid and it's not like that is somehow that wouldn't happen under current rules, isn't it?
The idea is sound if properly implemented and there's some teeth to punish rule breakers.
Football clubs outside of Utd and Real Madrid and pretty much money burning operations. A lot of big European clubs are in deep financial shit and would have been liquidated already if they were normal businesses, Inter and Barcelona spring to mind.
It's all unsustainable, whilst there's been massive revenue growth in the last 25 years, it's been pretty much impossible to be successful and even break even, let alone turn any kind of profit. Owners can cover losses shorter term, but eventually it'll all collapse.
So it makes sense that they put in much tougher spending controls. I still have a problem with it being revenue based though, simply entrenching the current big revenue clubs at the top indefinitely is stupid as well. The rules should be the same for all clubs in the division, if you want sustainability, you can come up with other rules to make sure teams don't spend beyond their means and go bust, there are lots of ways to do that and have a fair financial competition too.
It's all unsustainable, whilst there's been massive revenue growth in the last 25 years, it's been pretty much impossible to be successful and even break even, let alone turn any kind of profit. Owners can cover losses shorter term, but eventually it'll all collapse.
So it makes sense that they put in much tougher spending controls. I still have a problem with it being revenue based though, simply entrenching the current big revenue clubs at the top indefinitely is stupid as well. The rules should be the same for all clubs in the division, if you want sustainability, you can come up with other rules to make sure teams don't spend beyond their means and go bust, there are lots of ways to do that and have a fair financial competition too.
Baby steps
Eventually we move from revenue based caps to shared revenue and uniform caps across the board. Then draft picks. Then the draft show, with Cerefin coming out to boos from the English fan contigent